At that price point I'd go with an AMD quad-core over an Intel dual-core. That will definitely serve you better with photoshop.
Now, here's where I'm getting stuck. I have an old Radeon 9800 Pro with a meager 128 mb on it. It looks like I can get a card with a gig on it to fit the PCI Express 2.0 slot on the Mobo for stupid cheap, but I wonder about the quality of the card. Any tips on picking one?
For a start, VRAM is not a very useful way of judging video cards. There isn't a single statistic you can compare them by, similarly to how you can't directly compare CPUs by number of cores and clock speed. Basically, because there are big differences in architecture between cards, the best way to judge them is just to look at benchmarks on review sites like AnandTech and Tom's Hardware.
What kind of hard drive should I get? Remember, I'm trying to keep costs down, do if a SSHD is going to be significantly more expensive than a regular one, I'm going cheaper.
Yeah, don't bother with an SSD given your budget. Just buy a 1TB+ magnetic drive.
It's 1680 x 1050. Also, the GTX 460 was a better choice than the 5770 when last I checked, though it clearly depends on pricing.
Yeah, that's why I got the 768MB version of the GTX 460. It was a lot less money than the 1GB version, and just as good for most purposes. I even saw one WTF benchmark where it was better.
Mmm, simulposts. What's the difference between the card I selected and the one you suggested, George? Aside from about a hundred dollars?
Just to give you an idea of how this works, I'll compare the hardware of the GT 430 you picked to the GTX 460, which is in the same family of cards. To put it succinctly, although the GTX 460 and the GT 430 have the same amount of VRAM, the GTX 460 has roughly four times the raw processing power. Ultimately, what you have to do is look at benchmarks, though.
Here's an example. Although the direct comparison there is 1920x1200, you can see that the GTX 460 gets an average of 55 FPS to the GT 430's 17.
What's the difference between the card I selected and the one you suggested, George? Aside from about a hundred dollars?
Many, many frames per second.
Here's a review with a chart. Notice how the card you selected is at the very bottom and the one I selected is more towards the middle? And the one Lackofcheese suggested is even higher up?
Yeah, we can debate AMD vs nVidia all day, but we can agree that card is a bargain bin special and really not even that good in performance per dollar.
On balance of price and performance and interest of compromise with my nVidia sympathizers, I'll suggest this.
I added this one in and removed the other one. Edit: Okay, now the question is between the AMD and the other card. There's a 50 dollar difference. The second recommended card has a higher on-board memory at one gig and is cheaper, but will it perform better than the one I stuck in there?
Yeah, we can debate AMD vs nVidia all day, but we can agree that card is a bargain bin special and really not even that good in performance per dollar.
On balance of price and performance and interest of compromise with my nVidia sympathizers,I'll suggest this.
I was mostly referring to how we independently linked to the same review, although we did pick different individual game tests. Also, I just recommend whatever is the best bang for the buck at the time. That used to be the 5750 and 5770, but the GTX 460 is in the lead for now.
I addedthis onein and removed the other one. Edit: Okay, now the question is between the AMD and the other card. There's a 50 dollar difference. The second recommended card has a higher on-board memory at one gig and is cheaper, but will it perform better than the one I stuck in there?
No, the GTS 450 is slower than the GTX 460, and by a fairly large margin. Check the benchmarks George and I linked previously, and then you can Google for some more on your own. You've got to remember that VRAM is one of the least significant stats to compare video cards on. EDIT: I'm not sure which cards you were considering at this point, but either way the answer is the same - look at the benchmarks.
At that price point I'd go with an AMD quad-core over an Intel dual-core. That will definitely serve you better with photoshop.
I'm not terribly sold on the value of quad cores. I have one currently and I don't think it's terribly useful for anything but video encoding.
Ultimately, it's down to what you do with your CPU. Most people rarely push their CPU to its limits, and so they're better off getting the cheapest modern CPU available, which would be an Athlon dual-core. Indeed, a dual-core Athlon is perfectly sufficient for the majority of games, and for gaming alone the best thing to do would just be to save that money.
Since Mr. MacRoss mentioned Photoshop as one of the CPU-intensive tasks he'd be doing, I guess the thing to do is check a Photoshop benchmark. Looking here, it seems that the i3-530 beats the X4 640 by a 16% margin. The price difference is something to consider, however; the CPUs themselves differ by ~$20, and there's also the fact that motherboards for AMD CPUs are cheaper than their Intel counterparts. The i3 looks like the better choice here, depending on how much you value that performance in Photoshop.
I was mostly referring to how we independently linked to the same review, although we did pick different individual game tests. Also, I just recommend whatever is the best bang for the buck at the time. That used to be the 5750 and 5770, but the GTX 460 is in the lead for now.
It is a pendulum that swings back and forth. I've liked my AMD/ATI cards and I'm hoping the 6870 I just ordered will treat me as well as my previous cards have.
Since Mr. MacRoss mentioned Photoshop as one of the CPU-intensive tasks he'd be doing, I guess the thing to do is check a Photoshop benchmark. Lookinghere, it seems that the i3-530 beats the X4 640 by a 16% margin. The price difference is something to consider, however; the CPUs themselves differ by ~$20, and there's also the fact that motherboards for AMD CPUs are cheaper than their Intel counterparts.
You make a valid point, but having built AMD systems exclusively for several years I'm personally tired of their bullshit. They just never seem to be as tightly and as well setup as an average Intel system, and are much more fickle with settings. I recommend Intel these days cause I find them more hassle free.
No, the GTS 450 is slower than the GTX 460, and by a fairly large margin. Check the benchmarks George and I linked previously, and then you can Google for some more on your own. You've got to remember that VRAM is one of the least significant stats to compare video cards on.
VRAM is for texture detail, that is all.
And the GTS 450 I recommended second is slower, but cheaper. It's a trade off. The 460 GTX is nice, but it puts you over budget. Even the 5770 puts you over budget.
Galaxy 60XMH6HS3HMW GeForce GTX 460 (Fermi) GC 768MB 192-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Support Video Card is the card I selected now. Linky Also, with the loadout I have thus far, my price is sitting at 624.
Since Mr. MacRoss mentioned Photoshop as one of the CPU-intensive tasks he'd be doing, I guess the thing to do is check a Photoshop benchmark. Lookinghere, it seems that the i3-530 beats the X4 640 by a 16% margin. The price difference is something to consider, however; the CPUs themselves differ by ~$20, and there's also the fact that motherboards for AMD CPUs are cheaper than their Intel counterparts.
You make a valid point, but having built AMD systems exclusively for several years I'm personally tired of their bullshit. They just never seem to be as tightly and as well setup as an average Intel system, and are much more fickle with settings. I recommend Intel these days cause I find them more hassle free.
That is much the same reason Rym and Scott tend to favor Nvidia over AMD in video cards, however.
I have been less than impressed with my Radeon, so that alone is making me switch to nVidia.
That's a really old Radeon to make that kind of a call. But we're both recommending nVidia at this point, they just seem to be a bit stronger in value right now.
Here's an example of the kind of thing I hate about ATi.
On my HTPC I got an ATi video card because it was the best I could find that was low profile. However, it has a fickle issue. By default the image does not fill up the TV screen. I have to go into the ATi driver and manually drag a slider to get the 1080p to fill the entire television with overscan/overdrive whatever they want to call it. Sometimes the driver forgets this setting, even though I click Apply and OK. I then have to go back into the driver and set it again.
With NVidia this kind of thing isn't even necessary. It just displays the image properly by default every time.
These are the kinds of things that make a big difference in actual real world usage that never make it into reviews or benchmarks because they aren't quantitative, and they don't show up in standard test rigs.
I have been less than impressed with my Radeon, so that alone is making me switch to nVidia.
That's a really old Radeon to make that kind of a call. But we're both recommending nVidia at this point, they just seem to be a bit stronger in value right now.
I'm making the judgment based on passed performance. There was a good couple of years where ATI couldn't get their shit straight with drivers and it was pretty nightmarish to get things to function properly. I'll post the finished system in a few minutes.
There was a good couple of years where ATI couldn't get their shit straight with drivers and it was pretty nightmarish to get things to function properly.
Fixed that for you. Looks pretty good, but are you okay with $35 for only 250GB? As a point of comparison, 2TB comes in at $90 or so, which is eight times the space for less than three times the price. 2TB seems to be the best value at the moment, but everything in between is still better in price per GB than the 250GB drive. The general rule of thumb is that the ~$100 hard drive will typically offer the most GB per dollar.
If you're confident you'll only ever need 250GB that's fine, but otherwise you should consider a larger drive.
Comments
I'm not sure what my max screen reses are, but I think somewhere around 1600 x 1800 is my typical res for the desktop.
Total's at 564.93, but no vid card yet.
This video card looked good to me.
What's the difference between the card I selected and the one you suggested, George? Aside from about a hundred dollars?
Here's an example. Although the direct comparison there is 1920x1200, you can see that the GTX 460 gets an average of 55 FPS to the GT 430's 17.
Here's a review with a chart. Notice how the card you selected is at the very bottom and the one I selected is more towards the middle? And the one Lackofcheese suggested is even higher up?
On balance of price and performance and interest of compromise with my nVidia sympathizers, I'll suggest this.
Edit: Okay, now the question is between the AMD and the other card. There's a 50 dollar difference. The second recommended card has a higher on-board memory at one gig and is cheaper, but will it perform better than the one I stuck in there?
EDIT: I'm not sure which cards you were considering at this point, but either way the answer is the same - look at the benchmarks.
Ultimately, it's down to what you do with your CPU. Most people rarely push their CPU to its limits, and so they're better off getting the cheapest modern CPU available, which would be an Athlon dual-core. Indeed, a dual-core Athlon is perfectly sufficient for the majority of games, and for gaming alone the best thing to do would just be to save that money.
Since Mr. MacRoss mentioned Photoshop as one of the CPU-intensive tasks he'd be doing, I guess the thing to do is check a Photoshop benchmark. Looking here, it seems that the i3-530 beats the X4 640 by a 16% margin. The price difference is something to consider, however; the CPUs themselves differ by ~$20, and there's also the fact that motherboards for AMD CPUs are cheaper than their Intel counterparts. The i3 looks like the better choice here, depending on how much you value that performance in Photoshop.
And the GTS 450 I recommended second is slower, but cheaper. It's a trade off. The 460 GTX is nice, but it puts you over budget. Even the 5770 puts you over budget.
Linky
Also, with the loadout I have thus far, my price is sitting at 624.
Also, if this is the 9800 Pro you're talking about, please take into account that it's an 8 year old card.
On my HTPC I got an ATi video card because it was the best I could find that was low profile. However, it has a fickle issue. By default the image does not fill up the TV screen. I have to go into the ATi driver and manually drag a slider to get the 1080p to fill the entire television with overscan/overdrive whatever they want to call it. Sometimes the driver forgets this setting, even though I click Apply and OK. I then have to go back into the driver and set it again.
With NVidia this kind of thing isn't even necessary. It just displays the image properly by default every time.
These are the kinds of things that make a big difference in actual real world usage that never make it into reviews or benchmarks because they aren't quantitative, and they don't show up in standard test rigs.
I'll post the finished system in a few minutes.
By the way, to make a public wish list on Newegg, you hit the "Make Public" button, and then to get a link you grab the wish list number and stick it on the end of "http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishlistNumber="
Looks pretty good, but are you okay with $35 for only 250GB? As a point of comparison, 2TB comes in at $90 or so, which is eight times the space for less than three times the price. 2TB seems to be the best value at the moment, but everything in between is still better in price per GB than the 250GB drive. The general rule of thumb is that the ~$100 hard drive will typically offer the most GB per dollar.
If you're confident you'll only ever need 250GB that's fine, but otherwise you should consider a larger drive.